Posted by burnsy483 on 10/18/2012 9:11:00 AM (view original):Those stats are wrong. I was going to do the math where you take away his worst postseason to make this fair, but those stats aren't even right, so I won't bother.

And if you take away ARod's 2009 post-season, the Yankees haven't won a championship in 12 years.

Edit: I missed "with the Yankees." My bad. It's correct.

You're not taking into account WAR for 2009.

Not that it matters. A-Rod's replacement in this post-season is something like 0-14. His WAR is negative something.

He was too busy looking at himself in the mirror (or flirting with bimbos, striking out in the 9th inning of a playoff game, finding a new roid dealer- pick one) To give him the benefit of the doubt, there may have been medical reasons for delaying the surgery, though I really don't like giving Arod the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/5/2013 6:31:00 PM (view original):I still think he gets in eventually. Same with Bonds and Clemens. PEDs or not, they are among greatest players of all time. Once the old school sportswriter hysteria dies down, they are in.

This argument pushes people to the other extreme too. They were already potential HOFers without the drugs - but they got greedy. They had to be the best and make the big bucks.

I think Jack Morris put it best: They had a choice between money and the HOF, and they chose the money.

Some may not fault them for going after a bigger payday - I'm sure many of us would consider it if the opportunity was there. But in doing so, they gave up there shot at "immortality" as HOF inductees.

Yes, my comment was more about the overwhelmingly negative perception of Arod and the probability is that will keep him out long after the other 'roiders probably get in. I'll leave the overall "should steroid users be in the HOF" for another thread.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/5/2013 6:31:00 PM (view original):I still think he gets in eventually. Same with Bonds and Clemens. PEDs or not, they are among greatest players of all time. Once the old school sportswriter hysteria dies down, they are in.

This argument pushes people to the other extreme too. They were already potential HOFers without the drugs - but they got greedy. They had to be the best and make the big bucks.

I think Jack Morris put it best: They had a choice between money and the HOF, and they chose the money.

Some may not fault them for going after a bigger payday - I'm sure many of us would consider it if the opportunity was there. But in doing so, they gave up there shot at "immortality" as HOF inductees.

So the guys that used steroids "gave up their shot at immortality" but when Aaron and Mays used amphetamines it didn't matter? Where's the line? Both were not specifically banned by baseball but were illegal under US Federal law. Why didn't those guys give up their shots at immortality? How did they get in? How did guys who were known spitballers get in when that was specifically outlawed by the sport? I just want to know how people like you who get up on their high horses and declare that guys who used steroids absolutely do not deserve to be inducted into the HOF can still love Mays and Aaron and all the other guys from the '60s through the '80s who used uppers. Both of them are performance enhancing drugs. One helps you hit the ball, the other helps you get stronger and hit it further. So maybe the HR totals from the steroid era are more eye-popping. That's why they seem to infuriate the old-school guys I think. But there's no bright line. Someone needs to tell me what makes one thing ok and the other not, or I will continue to think that all the "steroid users never deserve to get in" fist pounders are really just hypocrites who can't get past the thought that things must have been better "back in the day."